Saturday, November 20, 2010

Stacy Bonds: investigation black-holed

The Ontario Special Investigations Unit has taken over the investigation of the Stacy Bonds case. The Ottawa police "internal investigation" is now history. And so is the likelihood of any quick resolution of the matter.

The SIU is notorious for finding in favour of the police 97% of the time. It also takes months, even years, for it to complete its dubious work. And even in the exceedingly rare cases when it does support the victims of police brutality, it cannot penetrate the Blue Wall, in good part because the fix is inevitably in.

So the Ottawa police are off the hook for now.

Chief Vern White had options. This did not include, however, suspending without pay the officers involved in the brutal assault on Bonds. That, as a reader correctly informed me, would have been illegal--contrary to Section 89 of the Ontario Police Services Act.

However, in a case as egregious as this, surely a mere review of the video-tape, and the opportunity for the officers to provide their lame-brained excuses for brutalizing an innocent citizen, would have been all the "internal investigation" required.

Those officers should have been criminally charged. They should have been fired. End of story. But now the SIU has its grubby mitts on the case, it's pretty well game over for any positive outcome for Bonds, unless she decides on a civil suit.* (If she does, I've already received pledges of contributions to a legal fund.)

Anyone remember Junior Alexander Manon? He was a Black youth in Toronto, who died this past May as a result of what many consider to be an act of murder by several Toronto police officers. The SIU has been "investigating" ever since.

But the Ontario Attorney General's Office is also involved in this travesty up to its wattled neck. It is strongly supporting the attempted prosecution of Bonds on a trumped-up charge of assault against the police, who were, of course, the ones who brutally attacked her. Indeed, as it turns out, the prosecutor in the case was shown the video well before the trial, but decided to press on with her further victimization.

This on-going saga has attracted front-page coverage by the Ottawa Citizen, which has also weighed in with a couple of blistering editorials, and run an equally scathing op-ed by law professor David Tanovitch questioning the Crown's decision to proceed with the bogus charge.

With respect to the latter, we might gain some insight from a telling remark by University of Ottawa law professor David Paccioco:

And, after all, we can't have that._________*UPDATE: I am reminded by reader (and lawyer) Nbob that Bonds does have another option. "It would be open to her to lay a private information and, if process is granted those involved would face criminal charges (e.g. assault, sexual assault, unlawful confinement)."

Private prosecutions are useless. Gary McHale already tried this with Fantino. The Crown is given control of the case if it's serious. They just use their "discretion" and determine that it's not in the public interest to proceed or there is no likelihood of conviction.

All we need is a politician with guts in Queen's Park (that, ah, wouldn't be you, Mr. McGuinty). Then you alter the Police Services Act, if necessary repressing any rebellion on the part of the police by means of the Emergencies Act (i.e. military law), and offer the police officers the choice of being both fired and arrested or complying. Then, as part of the wholesale reform, including the abolition of police unions, you establish a draconian oversight board.

I feel like the only way to tackle this problem is with a good ol' internet shaming campaign. Set up a website called www.shittycops.ca, and have it searchable by city or region, whereupon it would list all the cops either accused or convicted of douchebag behaviour (including links, etc., just to keep it somewhat legit...i.e., to avoid libel, defamation). Or maybe a ratemycops.com that allows people to rate them and comment on them.

I would *love* to see the reaction to that. I love good cops, and I can't stand douchebags...so, bring them out into the light.

OK, but if that is what you are arguing, you know those kinds of hearings must adhere to the rules of natural justice, can take a long time, are subject to review, etc. I'd be happy to see those cops fired on the basis of what we know, but I don't get why you are so anxious to find some hurried summary disposition in the face of the legislation and the entire body of administrative law. If Col. Williams collected his pay while sitting in jail awaiting trial despite his confession, and if he could have easily stretched his proceedings out for quite some time by pleading not guilty, what troubles you about according these cops the same rights? (Your lack of confidence in who is handling the investigation and hearing is a completely separate issue). Your arguments resemble those we usually see from right-wing law 'n order types.

"And one can be fired for bad conduct without criminal charges or a trial."

BUT...

Chief Vern White had options. This did not include, however, suspending without pay the officers involved in the brutal assault on Bonds. That, as a reader correctly informed me, would have been illegal--contrary to Section 89 of the Ontario Police Services Act.

Try to follow idiotic scum-bag: A needle-dicked pig with impulse control problems beats up a helpless woman half his size, it's video-taped, and the Crown presses charges against the woman. The judge sees the video-tape and says the woman's Charter rights have clearly been violated.

The needle-dicked pig is given desk duties with full pay, and an institution, the SIU, with a rotten record for finding against the police is entrusted with investigating this grievous violation of a citizen's Charter rights.

Dawg is upset about this, and all you can think of is how cute needle-dick is and how much you'd like to hold needle-dick, and comfort needle-dick, and caress needle-dick, and see that his rights (rights that he routinely violates when they're held by others) are respected.

I mean, whatever, idiotic scum-bag. A judge has seen the video-taped evidence and pronounced a violation of a citizen's Charter rights, and the system is rotten and it looks like the fix is in.

I think you should know, idiot scum-bag, that if some pig with issues about their mothers, or their sexual inclinations, or steroid rage, or whatever, decides to go medieval on your stupid ass, they're not going to know that you're "ironyabounds" and that you defend their thuggery on internet blogs. They're going to beat the crap out of you and if the fix is in, you'll never know justice. And then you can wail and gnash your teeth about it.

It's all about priorities. Yours are so f-upped that you're a complete waste of time. So, bye, idiot scum-bag.

Thwap,"A needle-dicked pig with impulse control problems beats up a helpless woman half his size, it's video-taped, and the Crown presses charges against the woman. The judge sees the video-tape and says the woman's Charter rights have clearly been violated."

Try to follow my response.

Nowhere have I commented on the particulars of this case. I haven't seen the video or read the reports INTENTIONALLY. I remain an objective outside and not an emotionally charged (fill in the blank) who can't seem to comprehend that.

I am, however, quite happy to point out that what I see going on here...thanks to people like you, is akin to a "trial by media" or "tried in the court of public opinion".

Dawg is rightfully proud (generally speaking) of the jury system as am I. We may disagree on the relative merits of other venues and procedures, but surely, it should be obvious that your comments and insults to me about this only prove my point about the problem with assuming guilt/innocence based on sporadic media/blog reports.

Shame on you.

And this is different from the right wing blogs vis a vis terrorist guilt, how, exactly?

thwap,"Dawg is upset about this, and all you can think of is how cute needle-dick is and how much you'd like to hold needle-dick, and comfort needle-dick, and caress needle-dick, and see that his rights (rights that he routinely violates when they're held by others) are respected."

I haven't seen any videotape related to this case.I haven't read the particulars of the case.You are assuming I have an opinion or position on this case which if you read back, you will see I have not expressed one.

It would appear that I remain calm, objective, unbiased whilst you try to pressure me into agreeing with your emotional and invective laden outburst.

Dawg,Whom would you rather have on a jury in this case? You do support the Jury system over the others, correct?

Or are you content with letting Thwap continue this "trial by public opinion"?